From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:11:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Move sequencer to builtin
Message-ID: <CALKQrgc5K0U2qCHjjzgxw1=70FbmHdokU3H0tfB_=+7gDVNzsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0ky7ad3cGBQs0DNht4Uo4MR08VrNx+PigcNraDP76CLA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> Go back to my 261 commits, show me one that is "unmindful of technical details".
>
> And you say this thread is an excellent example of your point that I'm
> unmindful of technical details?
>
> It's not. There are no technical details I was unmindful of in this thread.

Ok, I'll bite (against my better judgment). From a related thread, a
few minutes ago:

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> So you would deliberately break a bisection on this test file?
> No, this patch series won't be applied.

Thomas points out a technical detail with the patch series, and the
answer given is 100% non-constructive.

FWIW, I'd like to express my support for the opinions expressed by
Jonathan, Jeff and Thomas. They accurately describe my impression of
these discussion threads.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net